Waste management policies and policy instruments in Europe

Transcription

1 IIIEE Reports 2008:2 Waste management policies and policy instruments in Europe An overview Naoko Tojo International Institute for Industrial Environmental Economics at Lund University, Sweden Alexander Neubauer and Ingo Bräuer Ecologic - Institute for International and European Environmental Policy, Germany Report written as part of project HOLIWAST: Holistic Assessment of Waste Management Technologies

2 You may use the contents of the IIIEE publications for informational purposes only. You may not copy, lend, hire, transmit or redistribute these materials for commercial purposes or for compensation of any kind without written permission from IIIEE. When using this material you must include the following copyright notice for the authors to the respective parts of the report:: Copyright Naoko Tojo, IIIEE, Lund University and Alexander Neubauer and Ingo Bräuer. Ecologic - Institute for International and European Environmental Policy, Germany. All rights reserved in any copy that you make in a clearly visible position. You may not modify the materials without the permission of the author. Published in 2006 by IIIEE, Lund University, P.O. Box 196, S LUND, Sweden, Tel: , Fax: , iiiee@iiiee.lu.se. ISSN

3 Research European Commission PRIORITY [policy-oriented research priority SSP/8.1] SPECIFIC TARGETED RESEARCH OR INNOVATION PROJECT HOLIWAST Holistic assessment of waste management technologies. Contract number: Deliverable n 1-1 Title: Waste Management Policy and Policy Instruments in Europe an overview Start date of project: 1 st August 2005 Duration: 2 years Organisation name of lead contractor for this deliverable: International Institute for Industrial Environmental Economics (IIIEE) at Lund University, Sweden Project co-funded by the European Commission within the Sixth Framework Programme ( ) PU PP RE CO Dissemination Level Public Restricted to other programme participants (including the Commission Services) Restricted to a group specified by the consortium (including the Commission Services) Confidential, only for members of the consortium (including the Commission Services) Project home page:

4 Tojo, Neubauer and Bräuer

5 Preface This report constitutes a part of the Work Package one of the two-year ( ) research project entitled Holistic Assessment of Waste Management Technologies (HOLIWAST), funded by the European Commission. The HOLIWAST project is a collaborative effort of partners in seven Member States (Austria, Germany, Denmark, Finland, Italy, Poland and Sweden). Among them, the authors of this report are Naoko Tojo at the International Institute for the International Environmental Economics at Lund University in Sweden (Chapter 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6), and Alexander Neubauer and Ingo Bräuer. Ecologic - Institute for International and European Environmental Policy, Germany (Chapter 4). The report was originally submitted to the European Commission as a project report in 2006 and was subsequently modified. The authors would wish to thank the European Commission for providing funding as well as comments to the report. Gratitude is also directed to the partners of the projects for their valuable inputs. The full responsibility for the content of the report remains, however, with the authors.

6

7 HOLIWAST WP 1: Waste management policies and policy instruments in Europe Executive Summary This report constitutes a part of the Work Package 1 of the two-year research project entitled Holistic Assessment of Waste Management Technologies (HOLIWAST), funded by the European Commission. The HOLIWAST project is a collaborative effort of partners in seven Member States (A, D, DK, F, I, PL and S). Among them, the authors of this report are the partners in Sweden (Chapter 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6) and Germany (Chapter 4). The HOLIWAST project was launched with the following primary objectives: To provide a multidisciplinary (environmental, economic, social) comparison of different waste management technologies. To identify how the most appropriate technologies can be implemented within an integrated waste management framework, for different socio-economic context. To evaluate the opportunity of policy instruments for promoting these technologies and support decision makers in waste management. Work Package 1 of the project has the overall objective of providing insights into the environmental effectiveness of policy instruments related to waste management applied in selected socio-economic contexts. The study presented in this report is the first step to fulfil this task. The purpose of this report is to provide an overview of municipal solid waste management policies of the European Union and highlight the potential of selected existing policy instruments in reducing environmental impacts related to municipal waste generated in Europe, focusing on their implication to local governments. In doing so, it aims to facilitate the evaluation of policy instruments implemented and/ or discussed in the three case communities examined in the HOLIWAST project Torino, Italy, Katowice, Poland and Tølløse, Denmark and their effectiveness in decreasing the environmental impacts relating to waste. Among various waste streams, the scope of the HOLIWAST project is limited to municipal waste. Within the municipal waste, the following waste is covered under the project: mixed waste, mixed secondary materials, plastics, metal, glass, paper, composite packaging, biodegradable waste, garden & park waste, manually collected road waste, market waste, textile, batteries, fluorescent tubes, small waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) and oil and fat. Reflecting upon the aforementioned scope of the project, the report provides a summary of selected EU legislation, focusing on the parts related to local governments. Concerning the policy instruments, they are divided into administrative, economic and informative instruments. The general characteristics and effectiveness of the selected instruments are concisely described, using concrete examples. The examples are employed to illustrate the content of the instruments as well as what an instrument can manage to achieve in a given context. They are by no means exhaustive lists of all the existing cases. The study is based primarily on the review of existing literature (reports, legislation, books, academic articles, newsletters), complemented by limited number of interviews. Following the introductory chapter, Chapter 2 provides an overview of relevant EU laws and policies on waste. Chapter 3, 4 and 5 describes selected administrative instruments, economic instruments and informative instruments. The report ends with a concise concluding section (Chapter 6). I

8 Tojo, Neubauer and Bräuer Legal and policy framework for waste management in Europe The following EU legislation on waste, their subsequent amendments and (proposal for) revisions are reviewed, together with the thematic strategy on the prevention and recycling of waste. Directive 2006/12/EC on waste. Directive 91/689/EEC on hazardous waste. Regulation No 1013/ 2006/ EEC on the supervision and control of shipments of waste within, into and out of the European Community. Directive 1999/31/EC on the landfill of waste. Directive 2000/76/EC on the incineration of waste. Directive 96/61/EC concerning integrated pollution prevention and control. Directive 94/62/EC on packaging and packaging waste. Directive 2006/ 66/ EC on batteries and accumulators and waste batteries and accumulators and repealing Directive 91/157/EEC. Directive 2002/96/EC on waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE). As of spring 2007, the EU policies on waste are in transition. A new framework directive that replaces the existing framework directive has been proposed. In addition to some of the structural changes, some issues governing all waste policies in the EU such as the distinction between waste and recovered materials, waste for recovery versus waste for disposal are addressed in the proposal. The outcome will have implications to, among others, the movement of waste/ material streams within and across the national boarder and the use of incineration with energy recovery. Some of the EU legislation, especially those governing specific waste streams, contains within them many policy instruments and serves as examples of these policy instruments. Some of them, such as material restriction, set the same standards for all the Member States, while the fulfilment of requirements such as minimum collection/ reuse/ recycling targets is partially left in the hands of Member States. The WEEE Directive and the Directive on batteries and accumulators are based on the concept of EPR (extended producer responsibility). Implementation of the packaging directive in the majority of the old-15 Member States has also been based on EPR. Meanwhile, the implementation in practice often retains the collection responsibility in the hands of municipalities. Local governments seem to want to keep control over the municipal waste collection system for various reasons. The optimal solution may differ depending on the socio-economic context. What will remain in the waste stream handled by the municipalities have implication to the technological solutions they should select. Review of policy instruments In total of 18 policy instruments categorised into administrative, economic and informative are reviewed. The discussions of the respective instruments include the general characteristics of the instrument and its effectiveness. A straightforward comparison of these instruments is difficult due to the following reasons: Each instrument has different aims (addressing different level of hierarchy) and different targeted groups (municipal solid waste in general or specific waste streams).

9 HOLIWAST WP 1: Waste management policies and policy instruments in Europe Most of the instruments are not introduced in isolation: one policy intervention typically integrates several instruments. Moreover, there are many other factors influencing the behaviour of addressees. This poses challenges to delineate the impact of one single instrument. Effectiveness of a given instrument is a combination of its mechanism in theory as well as its implementation. Some instruments are introduced recently or in limited locations and do not have sufficient experience. The quality of studies evaluating the instruments as well as the methodology employed differs. Thus instead of comparing, characteristics of different instruments are highlighted. Administrative instruments for waste management Administrative instruments reviewed in this report include: Substance restriction; Source separation; Producer s take-back of specific discarded products; Collection, reuse/refill and recycling targets; Minimum recycled material content standards; Landfill restriction/diversion targets; and Environmentally sound treatment standards. The description of each instrument contains the content, objectives and addressees of the instruments, the environmental effectiveness of the instruments and its potential in introducing at the local level. The reviewed instruments intend to address different parts of waste hierarchy, from waste prevention to environmentally sound disposal. Although all of them in the end have some implications to environmentally sound treatment of a waste stream, some of them (e.g. substance restriction) take a preventative approach, while others (e.g. environmentally sound treatment standards) deal with the problem at end-of-pipe. Although prevention is better than cure that is, it would be preferable to take measures at source than remedy the problems once they occur the reality of the production and consumption system today requires measures that address the respective part of waste hierarchy. Most of the instruments discussed are introduced at the EU level and are transposed into national level. However, the implementation of many of these instruments is diverse among the national governments. Local governments have the possibility to influence the concrete forms of implementation although perhaps in different degree depending on the power distribution among government entities as well as power relation between private and public sectors in each country. The following table highlights issues that are related to the local governments, either in terms of roles they can take or potentials of introducing the instruments at the local level. III

10 Tojo, Neubauer and Bräuer Selected administrative instruments for waste management and issues related to local government Instruments Examples of application Issues related to local governments Substance restriction Source Separation Producers take-back Collection/reuse/refill/ recycling targets Minimum recycled material content standards Landfill restriction/diversion targets Environmentally sound treatment/disposal standards RoHS Directive, Battery Directive In various countries for waste streams such as packaging, batteries, EEE, biodegradable waste, tyres In various countries for waste streams such as packaging, EEE, batteries In various countries for waste streams such as packaging, EEE, batteries Included in the government procurement policies Implementation of landfill Directive, Battery Directive Incorporated in permits based on Directives on installations, national standards for some types of installations Local introduction may create trade distortion Possible inclusion in informative instruments Various local solutions exist. 1) convenience, 2) incentive and 3) awareness raising are among the key influencing factors The collection from private households is often left fully or partly in the hands of local government despite the legal text. Separation of small products face difficulties Centralised system run by PRO often neglect rural areas Local targets can be set for waste streams under municipalities such as biodegradable waste Local introduction may create trade distortion Possible inclusion in informative instruments/procurement policies High potential for local/regional governments to introduce restriction High potential for local/regional governments through enforcement (permits and inspections) The degree of implication to the local governments varies. Nevertheless, it seems that local government have roles to play in maximising the potential of the respective instruments. Economic instruments for waste management The following economic instruments are reviewed: Landfill tax Waste disposal tax Recycling credit scheme Subsidies for secondary products/taxation of quarry products Waste pricing: pay-as-you-throw approach Deposit-refund systems The criteria upon which the instruments described include addressees, immediate objectives and effectiveness of the instruments, as well as the frequency of application and political acceptance/enforceability of the instruments.

11 HOLIWAST WP 1: Waste management policies and policy instruments in Europe The various instruments are applied with differing frequency in the European Union. The aforementioned limitations makes it difficult to rank the effectiveness of the instruments. Nevertheless the analysis with the use of the different criteria allows some general conclusions, as summarised in the following table. Overview of the economic instruments including frequency of application Instrument Frequency Effectiveness/Experience Landfill tax Many countries in the European Union. Easy to implement; effectiveness depends on the concrete tax rate per ton waste Waste Disposal Tax Two examples. More elaborated version of the landfill tax; effectiveness depends on the concrete tax rate of the respective waste disposal methods per ton waste; promotion of waste recycling depends on other factors as well (demand for and prices of secondary materials). Recycling Credit Scheme Primarily the UK. High effectiveness, raises profitability for recycling, but limited application (UK) due to special situation (separation of waste disposal and waste collection authorities). Subsidies for secondary Materials / quarry tax Pay as you throw Deposit-refund systems Only two examples. Many pilot projects, much experience in Germany. Many countries in the European Union. Innovative measure but rarely applied so far, effectiveness depends on the tax rate, prone to resistance of lobby groups. Easy to implement and effective, but precaution against illegal waste dumping or misuse of recycling facilities ( misthrows ) should be taken, full financing of waste management infrastructure through waste fees has to be assured, sufficient awareness raising is necessary. Effective for certain goods, prone to resistance of lobby groups. Even though this study could not examine the waste policies of all Member States, and hence the enumeration contained in the table above may not be complete, it is clear that instruments such as the landfill/ waste disposal tax, pay-as-you-throw schemes, and deposit-refund systems have gained importance in Europe. The landfill tax has been introduced in an important number of old Member States of the European Union and can thus be labelled a common measure to help divert waste into recycling schemes. The effectiveness of these fiscal measures will depend on the concrete rate of the taxes or deposits levied on the respective goods and material. In addition, the instruments will be more effective if public authorities effectively communicate the existence, reasons for, and also the possibilities to avoid the taxes (quarry tax, waste disposal tax). In order to attain the objective of promoting recycling, the existence and adequacy of secondary materials to be used by industry must be advertised and fostered by public V

12 Tojo, Neubauer and Bräuer authorities. Hence, public authorities can raise the effectiveness of their waste policies through catchy information campaigns. If no demand for secondary materials exists, the landfill tax may not be able to bring about a rise in recycling activities for economic reasons. In order to promote the use of secondary materials, the gravel tax is an interesting approach; however, it is prone to diverse lobby resistance by raw materials producers and, therefore, a high rate of such a tax is for now unlikely. Therefore, a combination of a landfill tax (waste disposal tax) and a gravel tax might be an interesting approach to promote recycling and the use of secondary goods, even though the combined impact is difficult to evaluate due to the different addressees of the two taxes. Furthermore, it should be emphasised that the employment of the different economic instruments must fit with various regional circumstances. Thus, each country should devise a mix of instruments according to their traditions and waste management systems. For example, a recycling credit scheme like the UK s is not effective in countries where there is no distinction between waste disposal and waste collection authorities, or where a sophisticated recycling scheme has been in place for an extended period. For the latter, private firms need not be incited to set up new collection services to raise recycling rates. Pay as you throw away systems, in turn, can be applied anywhere; however, the optimal mix of fixed and variable elements of the waste management fees is very important. While PAYT is intended to foster waste reduction and waste recycling, it can in practice lead to escapism from the municipal waste management system and favour illegal waste dumping or misuse of recycling facilities. For economic reasons, the fees have to be set at a level that securely finances the work of the waste management institutions. If the variable elements of a waste fee are of only minor importance (for example < 20%), then the effect of PAYT is only very limited and the environmental sense of introducing such a PAYT would become questionable. All economic instruments can, moreover, be judged on their effectiveness only in the context of concrete regional and local circumstances. Informative instruments for waste management The following informative instruments are discussed: Eco-labelling scheme Green shopping guide Marking of products and components Information campaigns to residents Information provision to treatment facilities The criteria against which the instruments are described include the content, objectives and addressees of the instrument, its environmental effectiveness and its potential in introducing at the local level. The five informative instruments reviewed contain various different characteristics. Concerning the issues addressed in the instruments, two of them (eco-labelling schemes and green shopping guidance) cover environmental impacts arising from various parts of life cycle of products including end-of-life phase. The rest addresses waste as the primary issue. Regarding the level of coerciveness towards the primarily addressees, all the instruments reviewed leave it up to the receivers of the information to utilise it or not. Meanwhile, some of the instruments often mandate the provision of information from the producers (marking

13 HOLIWAST WP 1: Waste management policies and policy instruments in Europe requirement, information to treatment facilities), while in the case of, for instance, ecolabelling scheme, it is up to the producers to decide if they would like to participate in the scheme or not. The informative instruments that primarily address waste (marking, information campaign to residents, information to treatment facilities) are supplementary to other instruments. Ecolabelling schemes and green shopping guidance can be a stand-alone instrument. However, there are many factors that influence the behaviour of the addresses both the consumers and the producers. Just like other policy instruments, evaluation of the respective instrument is difficult, especially regarding attributability. The following table summarises how local governments can utilise the respective instruments. Selected informative instruments for waste management and issues related to local government Instruments Examples Issues related to local governments Eco-labelling scheme Green shopping guidance Marking of products and components Information campaign to residents Information to treatment facilities German Blue Angel, Nordic Swan, Swedish Good Environmental Choice, EU Flower (in total 26 countries and regions are members of the Global Ecolabelling Network) Communication of the existence and content of materials (e.g. handbooks, leaflets) assembled by others Provision of information via consumers advisers Directives on packaging, WEEE and batteries, voluntary initiatives by manufacturers Various initiatives (e.g. labelling on the waste containers, information materials to private households, posters in the public transports, advertisement on TVs) Both by public and private entities EU WEEE and ELV directives, voluntary initiatives by manufacturers Local governments can help raise awareness of consumers regarding eco-labelling schemes. Criteria in the scheme can be incorporated in the government green procurement program. Local governments can be an effective channel in communicating information materials Different requirements introduced by different local governments may face resistance and inefficient. Local governments can be an effective channel in communicating information materials Local governments should take the lead especially for the waste that come into municipal waste streams. Local governments can direct treatment facilities to the source of information. Local governments can play an essential role in implementing some of the instruments (e.g. information campaigns to residents on source separation). Moreover, they can serve as an important channel to connect the information to the primary users (consumers, treatment facilities) of the information. Steps forward In the next step of the Work Package 1 of the HOLIWAST project, the use of instruments presented in this report in the case communities are analysed in depth. The case studies aim to enrich the understanding on the implementation of some of the EU Directives and to provide insights into the use of policy instruments in practice in different context. Based on the VII

14 Tojo, Neubauer and Bräuer findings of the situation of each community, what instruments may supplement the existing ones can be considered.

15 HOLIWAST WP 1: Waste management policies and policy instruments in Europe Table of Contents List of Figures List of Tables 1 INTRODUCTION BACKGROUND PURPOSE SCOPE AND LIMITATION METHODOLOGY TERMINOLOGIES USED IN THE REPORT STRUCTURE OF THE REPORT LEGAL AND POLICY FRAMEWORK FOR WASTE MANAGEMENT IN EUROPE PRINCIPLES OF WASTE MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE OF THE EU WASTE LEGISLATION FRAMEWORK LEGISLATION ON WASTE Waste Framework Directive Hazardous waste Transboundary movement of waste LEGISLATION ON WASTE MANAGEMENT INSTALLATIONS Landfilling of waste Incineration of waste Operation standards for waste treatment installations Discharge of waste from ships LEGISLATION ON SPECIFIC WASTE STREAMS Packaging and packaging waste Waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) Spent batteries and accumulators ADMINISTRATIVE INSTRUMENTS ADMINISTRATIVE INSTRUMENTS FOR WASTE MANAGEMENT SUBSTANCE RESTRICTION SOURCE SEPARATION PRODUCERS TAKE-BACK OF DISCARDED PRODUCTS COLLECTION, REUSE/ REFILL AND/ OR RECYCLING TARGETS MINIMUM RECYCLED MATERIAL CONTENT STANDARDS LANDFILL RESTRICTION/ DIVERSION TARGETS ENVIRONMENTALLY SOUND TREATMENT/ DISPOSAL STANDARDS CONCLUSIONS ECONOMIC INSTRUMENTS INTRODUCTION Definition of Economic Instruments Types of Economic Instruments Economic Instruments in the waste management process Qualities of the different Economic Instruments TAXATION (CHARGES ON WASTE DISPOSAL) Landfill tax Waste disposal tax RECYCLING CREDIT SCHEME SUBSIDIES FOR SECONDARY PRODUCTS / TAXATION OF QUARRY PRODUCTS WASTE PRICING: PAY-AS YOU-THROW APPROACH DEPOSIT-REFUND SYSTEMS I

16 Tojo, Neubauer and Bräuer 4.7 CONCLUSIONS INFORMATIVE INSTRUMENTS INFORMATIVE INSTRUMENTS FOR WASTE MANAGEMENT ECO-LABELLING SCHEME GREEN SHOPPING GUIDANCE MARKING OF PRODUCTS INFORMATION CAMPAIGN TO RESIDENTS INFORMATION PROVISION TO TREATMENT FACILITIES CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS BIBLIOGRAPHY SOURCES OTHER THAN LEGISLATION...83 LEGISLATION...90 PERSONAL INTERVIEWS...92 ABBREVIATIONS... 94

17 HOLIWAST WP 1: Waste management policies and policy instruments in Europe List of Figures Figure 2-1: Current structure of EC Law (Adopted from European Commission (n.d.) and Krämer (2003))...11 Figure 2-2: Proposed revision of the structure of EC Law (A dopted from European Commission (n.d.), Krämer (2003) and Com(2005)666 final)...11 Figure 2-3: The current situation of biodegradable municipal waste treatment in selected EU Member States and regions (Crowe et al., 2002)...18 Figure 2-4: Key treatment methods for waste packaging in the old 15EU Member States (EEA 2006) Figure 2-5: WEEE systems for private households in Europe (Van Rossem, Tojo & Lindhqvist, 2006)...26 Figure 3-1: Effectiveness evaluation (adapted from Vedung, 1997)...34 Figure 3-2: GNP (real) and Packaging Consumption of private consumers in Germany (Source: German Statistical Federal Authority, GVM (Society for the research of the packaging market) and DSD)...41 Figure 4-1: Types of economic instruments (Source: adapted after Coggan & Whitten 2005) 51 Figure 4-2: Analysed economic Instruments and their field of application within the waste management process...52 List of Tables Table 2-1: reduction requirement of biodegradable municipal waste to be landfilled...17 Table 2-2: Recovery and recycling targets set forth in the amended packaging directive 94/62/EC...22 Table 2-3. Recycling rates for packaging in selected EU Member States...23 Table 2-4: Material/ substance reuse/ recycling/ recovery rate stipulated in the WEEE Directive...25 Table 2-5: Allocation of Physical Responsibility for Collection of WEEE from private households- Member State transposition legal text outcomes...27 Table 2-6: Physical and financial responsibility given to producers under the proposal for new directive on batteries and accumulators...29 Table 2-7: Recycling mandate stipulated in the proposal for new directive on batteries and accumulators...30 Table 2-8: The result of collection of consumer portable batteries in STIBAT* system, the Netherlands...32 Table 2-9: The result of collection of consumer portable batteries in Switzerland*...32 Table 3-1: Varying involvement of producers in organising collection from private households when they are responsible for take back...39 Table 3-2: Selected administrative instruments for waste management and issues related to local government...48 III

18 Tojo, Neubauer and Bräuer Table 4-1: Selection of Levied taxes on landfills in different EU-Member States Table 4-2: The Environmental Protection (Waste Recycling Payments) (England) Regulations Table 4-3: Litter reduction (beverage containers) Table 4-4: Overview of the economic instruments including frequency of application Table 5-1: Selected informative instruments for waste management and issues related to local government... 79

19 HOLIWAST WP 1: Waste management policies and policy instruments in Europe 1 Introduction This report constitutes a part of the Work Package 1 of the two-year research project entitled Holistic Assessment of Waste Management Technologies (HOLIWAST), funded by the European Commission. The HOLIWAST project is a collaborative effort of partners in seven Member States (A, D, DK, F, I, PL and S). Among them, the partners in Sweden and Germany are the authors of this report. This introductory chapter describes the background and the purpose of this report, its scope and limitation and the methodology used. It also explains the meaning of three terminologies discussed in the report: administrative, economic and informative policy instruments. The last section provides the structure of this report as well as the authors of the respective chapters. 1.1 Background Despite various efforts taken in the last several decades, overall waste generation is still increasing, with the significant contribution of the increase of municipal solid waste. 1 Due to the increase of the absolute amount of waste generated, the absolute amount of waste landfilled has not decreased. This is despite the increase in recycling and incineration. Waste management is a classical area where subsidiarity principle applies. In the EU context, many of the practical solution to implement the Directives are left in the hands of Member States, and the central government of the Member States often leave rooms to local governments to implement their own waste management plan. The local communities seek to adopt the solution that suits their needs most. This means that policies and approaches taken in different EU Member States and in different communities vary. The decision makers at the local communities are often most knowledgeable of the local context. However, they may not be aware of the development and solutions taken outside of their communities to deal with similar issues that they face. Identifying the optimal waste management strategies for a local community may not be a straightforward task considering the necessity of evaluating the situation from various dimensions of sustainable development. The selection they need to make is not limited to technological solutions. They also need to select the policy instruments that would help make the most out of the technological solutions they (intend to) have. Recognising these challenges, the HOLIWAST project was launched with the following primary objectives: To provide a multidisciplinary (environmental, economic, social) comparison of different waste management technologies. To identify how the most appropriate technologies can be implemented within an integrated waste management framework, for different socio-economic context. To evaluate the opportunity of policy instruments for promoting these technologies and support decision makers in waste management. 1 Between 1995 and 2003, the generation of municipal waste in EU-25 increased by 19%, which is coupled with the growth of economy. It is predicted that MSW is increased by 42.5% by 2020 compared to 1995 levels (COM (2005) 666 final, 5). 5

20 Tojo, Neubauer and Bräuer Work Package 1 of the project has the overall objective of providing insights into the environmental effectiveness of policy instruments related to waste management applied in selected socio-economic contexts. The study in this report is the first step to fulfil this task. 1.2 Purpose The purpose of this report is to provide an overview of municipal solid waste management policies of the European Union and highlight the potential of selected existing policy instruments in reducing environmental impacts related to municipal waste generated in Europe, focusing on their implication to local governments. In doing so, it aims to facilitate the evaluation of policy instruments implemented and/ or discussed in the three case communities examined in the HOLIWAST project, 2 and their effectiveness in decreasing the environmental impacts relating to waste. 1.3 Scope and limitation Among various waste streams, the scope of the HOLIWAST project is limited to municipal waste, which can be defined as waste from households as well as commercial, industrial and institutional waste, which because of its nature and composition is similar to waste from households. 3 Within the municipal waste, it was agreed that the following waste is covered under the project: mixed waste, mixed secondary materials, plastics, metal, glass, paper, composite packaging, biodegradable waste, garden & park waste, manually collected road waste, market waste, textile, batteries, fluorescent tubes, small waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) and oil and fat. Reflecting upon the aforementioned scope of the project, the report provides a summary of selected EU legislation, focusing on the parts related to local governments. The legislation include the framework directive, 4 the directive on hazardous waste, 5 the waste shipment regulation, 6 the landfill directive, 7 the incineration directive, 8 the IPPC directive, 9 the directive 2 These three communities are Torino (Italy), Katowice (Poland) and Tølløse (Denmark). 3 Excerpt from the definition of mixed municipal waste as found in Art. 3.3 of the Directive 2000/76/EC on the incineration of waste. 4 Directive 2006/ 12/ EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2006 on waste. OJ L 113, , p Council Directive 91/689/EEC of 12 December 1991 on hazardous waste. OJ L 377, 31/12/1991 P Regulation (EC) No 1013/ 2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 Juen 2006 on shipments of waste. OJ L 190, 12/07/2006. P Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste. OJ L 182, 16/07/1999 P Directive 2000/ 76/ EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 December 2000 on the incineration of waste. OJ L 332, 28/12/2000 P Council Directive 96/ 61/ EC of 24 September 1996 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control. OJ L 257, 10/10/1996 P

21 HOLIWAST WP 1: Waste management policies and policy instruments in Europe on packaging and packaging waste, 10 the directive on batteries and accumulators, 11 the WEEE directive 12 and the subsequent amendments of these directives. The study of each directive is by itself a topic of a full-scale research. Comprehensive coverage of all the aspects related to the respective directives or their implementation in Member States is therefore beyond the aim of this work. The intention of the report is instead to highlight elements that may have implication to the management of the streams covered by the project in local communities. To this end some aspects of the implementation in some Member States are discussed. Concerning the policy instruments, they are divided into administrative, economic and informative instruments (See Section 1.5 for the terminology). The general characteristics and effectiveness of the selected instruments are concisely described, using concrete examples. The examples are employed to illustrate the content of the instruments as well as what an instrument can manage to achieve in a given context. They are by no means exhaustive lists of all the existing cases. In many cases, several policy instruments are combined in one government intervention. For instance, a take-back requirement of products given to producers (administrative instrument) are combined with advance disposal fee system (economic instrument), information campaign to consumers and information requirement to recyclers (information instruments) within one program based on extended producer responsibility (EPR). Even one single policy instrument may contain elements of several instruments. For instance, the recycled material content requirement (administrative instrument) can be used in public procurement (economic instrument). Moreover, in addition to government interventions, there are a number of factors convenience, cost, societal expectation, consumer demands, to name but a few that influence behaviour of different addressees (citizens, industry, etc). Thus the study does not seek to attribute the effectiveness to one policy instrument, or to suggest the degree of policy instrument in numerical term. Instead, some of other influencing factors identified in the cases are mentioned to illustrate how a policy instrument may be affected by these factors. In principle, policy instruments described in this report can be introduced by the different levels of government. Meanwhile, except for some of the informative instruments, most of the examples provided in this document are introduced at national level. The possibility of introducing the instruments at the local level and potential challenges surrounding the local introduction is discussed whenever feasible. 1.4 Methodology The study is based primarily on the review of existing literature (reports, legislation, books, academic articles, newsletters), complemented by limited number of interviews. There are some differences in the approaches employed for the description and analysis of the administrative and informative instruments and that of economic instruments. Concrete approaches used are described in the chapters discussing the respective instruments. 10 Council Directive 94/ 62/ EC of 20 December 1994 on packaging and packaging waste. OJ L 365, 31/ 12/ 1994 P , as well as Directive 2004/ 12/ EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 amending Directive 94/62/EC on packaging and packaging waste. OJ L 47, , p Directive 2006/ 66/ EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on batteries and accumulators and waste batteries and accumulators and repealing Directive 91/157/ EEC. OJ L 166, , p Directive 2002/ 96/ EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 2003 on waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE). OJ L 037, 13/02/2003 P

22 Tojo, Neubauer and Bräuer 1.5 Terminologies used in the report In this report the three types of policy instruments informative are understood as follows. administrative, economic and A dministrative instruments cover various measures that concern fulfilment of certain tasks, such as achievement of a certain recycling rate, elimination of the use of certain substances and prohibition of landfilling. When mandated via legislation, it makes the target entities seek to achieve certain tasks or refrain from doing certain things, in accordance with what is demanded in the legislation (Vedung, 1998, p.31-32; van der Doelen, 1998, p.132). Unless exemption is granted, the target entities have no choice but to obey. The term regulations (Vedung, 1998), judicial control model (van der Doelen, 1998), regulatory instruments or mandatory instruments essentially refer to these mandatory administrative instruments. However, economic instruments for instance tax and subsidies and informative instruments, such as labelling requirement and provision of certain information, are often mandated by law. Thus, the author chose to use the term administrative instruments. Economic instruments generally provide monetary incentives subsidies, refund and the like when the addressees carry out tasks that the instrument wishes to promote, or disincentives such as tax, when the addressees do not fulfil the required actions (Vedung, 1998, p.32; van der Doelen, 1998, p.132). The crucial difference between administrative instruments and economic instruments is that in the former, when mandated by government, the addressee has no choice but to fulfil the task, while in the latter, the addressee has the freedom of carrying out the tasks or not. Informative instruments, or information, concern the collection and provision of information, and are used with the assumption that, people behave differently when they have better information and understanding. Also referred to as moral suasion, it seeks to influence people through the transfer of knowledge, the communication of reasoned argument, and persuasion (Vedung, 1998, p.33). From the perspective of level of coerciveness, policy instruments can be categorised between mandatory and voluntary. The addressee of the mandatory instruments is required to fulfil the tasks laid down in legislation, while the private actors can set up the goals themselves and strive to achieve them via voluntary initiatives. Between these two exists, for instance, negotiated agreements, where the government and private actors form a contract, in which the government typically agrees to refrain from enforcing legislation on condition that the private actors achieve a certain goal. Establishment of a negotiated agreement may also lead to the development of legislation. 1.6 Structure of the report Following this introductory chapter, Chapter 2 provides an overview of relevant EU Law and Policy on waste. Chapter 3, 4 and 5 describes selected administrative instruments, economic instruments and informative instruments. Each chapter introduces the approach in which the respective instruments addressed in the chapter are discussed, followed by the description of these instruments. The respective chapters end with a short conclusion section summarising the discussions in the chapters. The report ends with a concise concluding section (Chapter 6). 8

23 HOLIWAST WP 1: Waste management policies and policy instruments in Europe Chapter 4 on economic instruments is written by Alexander Neubauer and Ingo Bräuer of Ecologic - Institute for International and European Environmental Policy in Germany. The rest of the document (Chapter 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6) are written by Naoko Tojo at the International Institute for Industrial Environmental Economics at Lund University, Sweden. 9

24 Tojo, Neubauer and Bräuer 2 Legal and Policy Framework for waste management in Europe Waste legislation and policy in the EU Member States should follow what is decided at the EU level, either through transposition (in the case of Directives) or through direct application (in the case of Regulations). In this chapter, the basic principles governing the EU waste policy is briefly described, followed by the overall structure of the EU waste legislation. It is followed by the discussion of selected EU legislation, including the implementation of the legislation in the Member States, highlighting the issues relevant to the overall projects. 2.1 Principles of Waste Management In many European countries waste management as a government activity emerged in the early part of the 20 th century. Hygiene and public health were the main drivers for government intervention. In the 1980s and 1990s, end-of-pipe responses were increasingly viewed as ineffective in their long-term impact. During the early 1990 s many environment administrations started to embrace source reduction and pollution prevention goals, as also reflected in the waste management area. The main guiding principles of the EU waste management policy today include prevention principle, producer responsibility and polluter pays principle, precautionary principle and proximity principle (European Communities, 1999). - the principle of prevention or prevention is better than cure means that prevention of damage to the environment prior to its occurrence is better than reparation of damage already made. - the precautionary principle means that in the threat of irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty does not justify not to take actions. - the polluter pays principle suggests that the one who pollutes should pay for the consequences. - the extended producer responsibility (EPR) principle underpins the allocation of responsibility of environmental impacts related to products to manufacturers of products due to their capacity to make changes at source. - the proximity principle suggests that waste should generally be disposed of as closely as possible to where it is produced. These principles are operationalised in a so-called waste hierarchy, as discussed further in Section The principle of EPR has been applied to some directives governing specific waste streams (Section 2.5). With regard to jurisdiction, the subsidiarity principle applies, which suggests that only those tasks that cannot be addressed at the lower levels of governments (i.e. local government) are dealt with at the higher levels. 2.2 Structure of the EU Waste legislation Waste legislation in Europe can be categorised into three categories: (1) framework (basic) legislation, (2) legislation on waste installation, and (3) legislation on specific waste streams. A schematic map of the current legislative structure is found in Figure

25 HOLIWAST WP 1: Waste management policies and policy instruments in Europe Waste Framework Directive (2006/12) 1. Framework/Basic Legislation Hazardous Waste Directive (91/689) Waste Shipment Regulation (Reg.259/93) 2. Waste Installations Incinerators (2000/76) Landfills (99/76) 3. Specific waste streams Waste from Ships (2000/59) Waste oils (75/439) Titanium dioxide (78/176) Sewage sludge (86/278) PCB/ PCT (96/59) Batteries (91/157) Packaging (94/62) ELV (2000/53 ) WEEE & ROHS (2002/ /95) Mining waste (proposal) Figure 2-1: Current structure of EC Law (Adopted from European Commission (n.d.) and Krämer (2003)). W aste Fram ework Directive (2006/12) 1. Framework/Basic Legislation Hazardous W aste Directive (91/689) W aste Shipment Regulation (Reg.259/93) 2. Waste Installations Incinerators (2000/76) Landfills (99/76) 3. Specific w aste streams W aste from Ships (2000/59) W aste oils (75/439) Titanium dioxide (78/176) Sewage sludge (86/278) PCB/ PCT (96/59) Batteries (91/157) Packaging (94/62) ELV (2000/53 ) W EEE & ROHS (2002/ /95) M ining waste (proposal) Figure 2-2: Proposed revision of the structure of EC Law (A dopted from European Commission (n.d.), Krämer (2003) and Com(2005)666 final) As of spring 2007, the overall changes of the waste legislation has been discussed, as found in the proposal for the new framework directive (COM (2005) 667 final) and the thematic strategy on the prevention and recycling of waste (COM (2005) 666 final). Both documents were published December The main structural changes suggested include merger of the Directive on hazardous waste into the framework directive. The proposed change also includes the inclusion of directive governing waste oil into the framework directive. 13 A schematic map to describe the change can be found in Figure Council Directive 75/439/EEC of 16 June 1975 on the disposal of waste oils. 11

26 Tojo, Neubauer and Bräuer 2.3 Framework legislation on waste The framework waste legislation comprises two Directives, which set general framework of waste management in EU. The first one is on waste and another one is on hazardous waste. In addition, there is also a regulation that governs the transboundary movement of waste within the European Community and between EU and the rest of the world Waste Framework Directive The Directive 75/ 442/ EEC on waste established the overall framework for management of waste in 1975, as subsequently amended in 1991 and In 2006, the Directive 75/ 442/ EEC was replaced by Directive 2006/ 12/ EC, which incorporated all the existing amendments made to the existing Directive. 15 As mentioned, as of spring 2007 a new directive completely replacing the existing directive has been proposed ((COM (2005) 666 final) Definition of waste, waste recovery and waste disposal The framework Directive 2006/12/EC defines waste as any substance or object in the categories set out in annex I which the holder discards or intends or is required to discard (Art. 1 (a)). It further enlists activities and operations that are considered as recovery and disposal in Annex II B and Annex IIA respectively. The two main disputed issues on the definition have been 1) when waste cease to be waste and become secondary products materials or substances again and 2) the distinction between waste recovery and waste disposal. Regarding the first point, much discussion have been raised by industries who are involved in material recycling, other forms of recovery and/ or disposal of substances that are in the grey zone between waste and recycled materials. The aspiration of the industries have been to have the substances they deal with not to be considered as waste. This is due to the higher administrative burden when handling waste compared to handling non-waste, and negative images associated with waste (COM (2003) 301 final). In relation to the administrative burden, the line between what constitutes waste recovery and waste disposal have also been controversial. At the European level, this has been disputed especially in relation to shipment of waste across the national borders, as the EU Regulation governing the transboundary movement of waste have more stringent requirements on the shipment of waste for disposal than waste for recovery (See Section 2.3.3). It has been feared that lack of the Community-wide standards for recovery operation may also lead to a situation where recovery is done in a country with less stringent standards and impede the technological development of recycling operation that meet higher environmental standards (COM (2003) 301 final). 14 Directive 91/156/EEC, Directive 91/692/EEC, Commission Decision 96/350/EC and Council Directive 96/59/EC. 15 Directive 2006/ 12/ EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2006 on waste. OJ L 113, , p The Directive 2006/ 12/ EC does not incorporate any changes suggested in the proposed revision in 2005 found in COM (2005) 666 final. 16 The proposal went through the first reading of the European Parliament in February 2007 and the content is still debated (ENDS, 2007, February 13). 12

27 HOLIWAST WP 1: Waste management policies and policy instruments in Europe Another issue related to the distinction between waste recovery and waste disposal is the positioning of municipal waste incineration operations, which are currently considered as waste disposal. Some argue that distinction should be made between incineration with energy recovery and landfilling (now both are considered as waste disposal), and production of energy should be considered when defining what constitute recovery activities (COM (2005) 666 final). Others argue that incineration with energy recovery should not be treated equal to material recycling. A number of court cases have been brought up to the European Court of Justice as well as national courts on the two issues, which provided some guidance to the interpretation of the definition (COM (2003) 301 final). The cases highlighted the necessity to clarify the definition of waste. Some solutions proposed in the new framework directive, the thematic strategy and elsewhere are as follows: Development of criteria for when waste ceases to be waste on stream by stream basis After an extensive consultation with stakeholders the Commission concluded that the definition of waste itself should remain unchanged. However, the proposal for revision suggests that when waste cease to be waste should be considered on specific stream-by-stream basis. It sets forth two criteria upon which the appropriateness of the waste being reclassified as secondary products, materials or substances should be judged. These criteria include the potential environmental impacts caused by the reclassification and the existence of market for the secondary materials. It is proposed that the decision should be made upon consultation with Member States (COM(2005)666 final; COM(2005)667 final; European Commission, n.d.). Since the proposal of the new Directive appeared in 2005, the main discussion point regarding this is the decision making process for development of criteria. While the Commission proposed the so-called comitology procedure (member states committees chaired by the Commission), the Parliament pushes for the co-decision process, where Parliament is also included in the decision making process (ENDS, 2006, May 5; ENDS, 2006, June 26). Distinction of incineration with the level of energy recovery Regarding the waste recovery and waste disposal, the proposed new framework directive seeks to clarify that the distinction of the two should be made based on the substitution of resources. It lists up operations that are considered as recovery in Annex II, and suggests mechanism according to which decisions should be made whether the operation in question is recovery or not. This seems to suggest the growing acceptance of incineration with energy recovery as a way to avoid landfilling of waste. A major driving force behind the increasing acceptance seems to lie on the strong emphasis on climate change in the overall environmental policy agenda. Meanwhile, concerns have been raised that increasing establishment of incineration undermine material recycling. Regarding the standard, concerns have been expressed regarding the level of the standards. Some countries where incineration plants with high energy efficiency exist (e.g. Denmark) fear a large flow of waste into their country, as they have plants whose operation would be considered as recovery, which other countries do not have (ENDS, 2006, October 11). Other 13

28 Tojo, Neubauer and Bräuer countries such as France fear that many of their plants will not be qualified as waste-to-energy plant (ENDS, 2006, June 26). Since the emergence of the proposal for the new Directive, Development of standards for recycling facilities In order to secure the quality of recycling activities as well as to enhance the competitiveness of the environmentally superior recycling practices, the development of standards for recycling activities is proposed (COM (2005) 666 final). This, together with the development of the criteria for when waste ceases to be waste, is considered to promote the circulation of recycled materials with higher quality Waste Hierarchy As manifested in the explicit mentioning in Fourth environmental action program, waste management hierarchy served as the guiding principle behind the waste management policy of the European Community since the late 1980s (Krämer, 2003, p ). The concept is adopted in, for example, the 1996 general strategy of waste, which respects the hierarchy of prevention, re-use, recycling, recovery of materials, energy recovery and final disposal (European Parliament, 1996). The hierarchy was also included in the Article 3 of the 2006 framework directive of waste: 1. Member States shall take appropriate measures to encourage: (a) firstly, the prevention or reduction of waste production and its harmfulness (b) secondly: (i) the recovery of waste by means of recycling, re-use or reclamation or any other process with a view to extracting secondary raw materials, or (j) the use of waste as a source of energy The proposed new directive also mentions the hierarchy, which reads as follows. the Member States are to take measures, as a matter of priority, for the prevention or reduction or waste production and its harmfulness and, secondly, for the recovery of waste by means or reuse, recycling and other recovery operations (Article 1, paragraph 2). Some have a critical view on the new formulation, as it puts reuse, recycling and other recovery operations at the same level of options. The new formulation, together with the suggested inclusion of incineration with energy recovery in waste recovery instead of waste disposal, is considered to undermine material recycling activities and boost incineration with energy recovery instead. The Parliament first reading in 2007 clearly highlights the five-level waste hierarchy, which are 1) prevention and reduction of waste, 2) reuse, 3) recycling, 4) other recovery operation and 5) the safe and environmentally sound disposal of waste (Council of the European Union, 2007). It has been recognised that waste prevention, the highest in the waste hierarchy, has not been making much progress. Indeed, the generation of waste per capita has been constantly increasing despite various efforts. The shortcoming has been recognised both in the proposal for the new framework directive and the Thematic Strategy. The proposed new framework directive contains a section that requires member states to develop a waste prevention program (Article 29-31) Other issues 14

29 HOLIWAST WP 1: Waste management policies and policy instruments in Europe The Directive 2006/ 12/ EC requires recovery and disposal facilities to obtain permits for their operations from the competent authorities (Art. 9, 10). The proposed new waste framework directive retains the requirements (Art. 19). Meanwhile, it also clarifies that in case a waste management facility already obtains a permit through the IPPC Directive (see Section 2.4.3), the facility does not have to have another permit based on waste legislation such as landfill directive or incineration directive (Art. 20). The Directive 2006/ 12/ EC requires Member States to develop a waste management plan (Art. 7). The proposed new directive maintains the requirements, while further elaborating what should be included in the plan (Art. 26). Among others, it highlights the necessity of the assessment of economic instruments and of the inclusion of the plan for packaging and packaging waste (See Section 2.5.1) as well as the reduction of biodegradable waste going to landfill (See Section 2.4.1). Other issues discussed since the emergence of the proposal in 2005, and are included in the 2007 Parliament first reading, include the inclusion of waste prevention targets and the development of separate directive for biodegradable waste (Council of the European Union, 2007) Hazardous waste Complementing the waste framework directive 75/ 442/ EEC, the Directive 91/ 689/ EEC on hazardous waste stipulates further requirements on hazardous waste from non-domestic sources. The Directive aims to introduce harmonisation in the management of hazardous waste among Member States (Art. 1.1). In order to have the same understanding of hazardous waste, it lists in its Annexes types of wastes that can be classified as hazardous, and includes their constituents and properties. Member States must ensure that hazardous waste is recorded and identified, and that they are not mixed with each other or with non hazardous waste (Art. 2). They should also ensure that when hazardous waste is collected, transported and stored, it is packaged and labelled in accordance with the EU/ international standards (Art. 5.1). The Directive also requires that the national competent authorities publish hazardous waste management plans (Art.6). In addition, the national competent authorities must inspect, in particular, installations producing and receiving hazardous wastes, as well as transportation facilities for such waste (Art. 5.2). As mentioned in Section 2.2, the content of the hazardous waste will be integrated into the new waste framework directive, and the directive itself will be repealed Transboundary movement of waste In accordance with the proximity principle, waste should be treated as close to the origin of the waste as possible. However, it may not be economically and environmentally efficient to build state-of-the-art waste treatment plants in a number of localities for all types of waste. When treatment facilities that enable environmentally sound management of waste do not exist within the vicinity/ country, waste is to be transferred to another country where appropriate facilities exist. In the EU, there existed a Regulation 259/ 93/ EEC that governed the transboundary movement of waste both within the European Community and between Member States and the third party. It is closely related to other international agreements on the transboundary 15

30 Tojo, Neubauer and Bräuer movement of hazardous waste, such as the Basel Convention 17 and OECD decisions relating to transboundary movements of waste destined for recovery operations. In July 2006, the Regulation was entirely replaced by Regulation 1031/ 2006/ EC. 18 The revision aims to simplify the procedure laid down in the 1993 Regulation and to integrate all the clauses in the Basel Convention and the OECD Decision C(2001)107/ Final (COM(2003)379 final). 19 The central mechanism set out in the Regulation is the compulsory prior notification system from the exporting party and the authorisation (consent) from the competent authorities in the importing state. The rigidity and the format of notification and consent differ depending on the relative hazardousness of waste (categories found in Annexes III, IV, and V), whether it is destined for recovery or disposal, and their destination (within the European Community, across the boarder of the European Community, OECD or non-oecd countries). In addition, the regulation prohibits mixture of waste documented in accordance with the regulation with other waste (Art. 19) and requires take-back of the dispatching states should the transboudary movement of waste cannot be completed as intended (Art. 22) or if the shipment is illegal (Art. 24). Depending on the governmental structure surrounding waste, the task of providing consent may fall onto local governments. On the operational side, the difficulties of distinguishing between second-hand products/recycled materials and waste when products become waste have been recognised by among others the enforcement officials in charge of waste shipment regulation (IMPEL, 2004). Concerning the distinction between waste and second-hand products/ recycled materials, efforts have been made to standardise the operation of European port authorities in order to avoid the shipment of waste under the name of second hand products/ recycled materials in ports of less stringent inspections (IMPEL 2004). Project works have been conducted among the port authorities of the EU Member States. The project is in its second phase and involves 13 member states. The main focus areas include exportation of waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) to non-oecd countries in Africa and Asia, and end of life vehicles to Africa (IMPEL 2004). Some member states (for instance the Netherlands and the UK) developed guidance documents/operational manuals for distinction. 2.4 Legislation on waste management installations Legislation on waste management installations includes regulations on waste landfilling and incineration. The so-called IPPC Directive sets standards for permits provided to waste treatment installations. There is also a Directive addressing the discharges of waste and cargo residues from ships. 17 Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal. More information can be found 16 at: 18 Regulation (EC) No 1013/ 2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 Juen 2006 on shipments of waste. OJ L 190, 12/07/2006. P Decision of the Council C(2001)107/Final Concerning the Control of Transboundary Movements of Wastes Destined for Recovery Operations.

31 HOLIWAST WP 1: Waste management policies and policy instruments in Europe Landfilling of waste The overall objective of the Directive 1999/ 31/ EC on the landfill of waste is to provide for measures, procedures and guidance to prevent or reduce as far as possible negative effects on the environment (pollution of surface water, groundwater, soil and air, on the global environment), and on human health related to landfill (Art. 1.1). It prescribes various requirements for the location, design and operation of landfill. The Directive establishes three types of landfill: landfill for hazardous waste, non-hazardous waste and inert waste (Art. 4), and prescribes types of wastes to be brought to the respective landfills (Art.6). For waste prevention, it requires Member States to meet with numerical reduction targets for biodegradable waste to be brought to landfill, as found in Table 2-1, and lists up items that should be prohibited from landfilling (hazardous wastes, tyres, and those described in the acceptance criteria in Annex II) (Art. 5). Measures to achieve the diversion targets for biodegradable waste introduced in the old 15 EU Member States include source separation, incineration, landfill ban, landfill tax, home composting and other fiscal measures addressing households or waste industry. Namely, according to Crowe et al. (2002), except for Luxemburg whose data was not available, all the Member States introduced some measure for source separation (Section 3.3). Landfill tax has been used in 9 countries (Section 4.2.1), and three countries (Netherlands, Denmark and Belgium) introduced landfill restriction (ban or diversion targets), while 6 more countries have planned to introduce it (Section 3.7) (Crowe et al., 2002, p.23-25). Figure 2-3 shows the treatment practices of biodegradable municipal waste in some European countries as of Table 2-1: reduction requirement of biodegradable municipal waste to be landfilled Reduction target for biodegradable municipal waste (by weight) Deadline 75% of what is produced in % of what is produced in % of what is produced in (Source: Directive 1999/31/EC) Optional deadline for countries that landfilled more than 80% of MSW in

32 Tojo, Neubauer and Bräuer Figure 2-3: The current situation of biodegradable municipal waste treatment in selected EU Member States and regions (Crowe et al., 2002) As seen, half of the countries are landfilling more than 50% of the biodegradable municipal waste. Member States as well as their local communities that have been relying on landfill are now faced with challenges of selecting methods to achieve the targets. The difficulties lie in deciding whether they select the biological treatment (e.g. creation of compost), and if so, estimating how much of the biodegradable municipal waste could be treated this way without introduction of incineration. The growing acceptance of incineration with energy recovery (See Section ) seems to drive Member States to be inclined to introduce incineration as at least part of the solution. These include the Helsinki region in Finland (Arnold, 2006, personal interview) as well as Torino in Italy. Ministry of the Environment in Poland is also considering the introduction of incinerators, but the price as well as public resistance poses challenges (Kloptek, 2006, personal interview). The Directive in its Annex I prescribes an extensive requirements that all the landfills should fulfil. Issues addressed in Annex I include the location and design of landfill. Among others, it specifies general conditions for water and leachate management, with the view to prevent pollution of surface, ground water and soil. The directive prescribes procedures regarding how waste should be accepted, how control and monitoring should be done, what should be done to close the landfill and how it should be taken care of after the closure (Art ). Annex II provides general principles and guidelines for waste acceptance procedure and criteria. Minimum procedure for control and monitoring, including the procedure and frequency for sampling and monitoring, are described in Annex III. The Directive stipulates that costs relating to all operations and subsequent closure should be internalised in the price charged by the operator (Art. 10). It also requires that the existing landfills meet what is stipulated in the Directive within 4 to 5 years after the Directive is introduced (Art. 14). The aftercare of existing landfills that are already closed has posed financial challenges in some countries such as Finland, as there is no income generated from the landfills that ceased to operate (Lilja, 2006, personal interview). 18

33 HOLIWAST WP 1: Waste management policies and policy instruments in Europe Incineration of waste The goal of the Incineration Directive 2000/ 76/ EC is to prevent or limit negative effects on the environment and the resulting risks to human health from the incineration and coincineration of waste (Art. 1). The Directive was developed to fill in gaps existing among the three Directives (89/ 369/ EEC and 89/ 429/ EEC on new and existing municipal waste plants and 94/67/EC on the incineration of hazardous waste). The Directive covers waste incineration plants with or without energy recovery as well as coincineration plants, the main purpose of which is the generation of energy or production of material products (such as cement kilns) (Art. 2, Art. 3.5). 20 The Directive sets requirements relating to permit, operation conditions, management of residues, monitoring and measurement. The Directive establishes limit values for emissions to both air and water (Art, 7 and 8, as further determined in Annex V, II and VI). Standards for energy plants and other production plants that use waste as part of their energy sources are often national/ local specific, whereas the standards in the incineration directive is applied to all Member States. The national/ regional requirements for these plants or are typically less stringent than standards set in the Incineration Directive. Thus, the inclusion of the co-incineration posed challenges for these plants to meet the requirement for example in Finland (Lilja, 2006, personal interview) and Poland (Kloptek, 2006, personal interview). Meanwhile, the implementation of the Directive should secure the high environmental standards of all the incineration plants across Europe (Krämer, 2005, personal interview) Operation standards for waste treatment installations Some waste treatment installations are also covered under the Integrated Pollution Prevention Control (IPPC) Directive 96/ 61/ EC. These installations, as listed in the Annex I 5 of the directive, include: installations for disposal and recovery of hazardous waste as further specified in the list in the framework directive 75/ 442/ EEC, hazardous waste directive 91/ 689/ EEC and waste oil directive 75/439/EEC, with the capacity exceeding 10 tonnes per day; incineration plants for municipal waste with the capacity exceeding 3 tonnes per day; installations for disposal of non-hazardous waste further specified in the list in the framework directive 75/442/EEC, with the capacity exceeding 50 tonnes per day; and landfills receiving more than 10 tonnes per day or with a total capacity exceeding tonnes, excluding landfills of inert waste. This mean that these installations must receive permits for operation from competent authorities in the country. However, technical requirements related to landfills are set forth by the Council thus standardised across the EU (Art. 18). At present, these installations (at least in some member states) have to obtain permits both under the IPPC Directive and incineration/ landfill directive. The new framework directive 20 Exemptions are plants for specific waste stream (vegetable waste, cork waste, radioactive waste, animal carcasses, and off shore incinerations plants) as well as experimental plants with small capacity (Art. 2.2). 19

34 Tojo, Neubauer and Bräuer intends to streamline the process by saying that once a permit is obtained under the IPPC Directive, it is not necessary to obtain another. As a means to facilitate information exchange as stipulated in Article 16 of the Directive, Best Available Technique Reference (BREF) documents have been developed to provide guidance for permit conditions. The emission limit values included in the permits should be based on the best available techniques (Art. 9.4). Meanwhile, the Directive also leaves some rooms for adjusting the content of the permit to the local condition (Art. 9.4) Discharge of waste from ships There is also a Directive (2000/ 59/ EC) that addresses the marine pollution due to the discharges of waste and cargo residues from ships. It is a measure taken by the European Communities to implement the so-called MARPOL 73/ 78 Convention. 21 The Directive intends to reduce marine pollution originating from waste generated from the operation of ships by requiring the provision of adequate waste reception facilities in all EU ports including recreational ports and marinas. The masters of all ships, including fishing vessels and recreational craft, must deliver their waste at the port reception facilities and pay fees irrespective of the usage of facilities. The requirements to provide these facilities most likely are put upon local communities that have ports. 2.5 Legislation on specific waste streams In addition to legislation that concerns waste in general, there are Directives that address waste streams consisting of specific post-consumer products or materials/ substances used in products (See Figure 2-1). Among these Directives, those on packaging and packaging waste, electrical and electronic equipment and batteries and accumulators have relevance to the waste streams covered under the HOLIWAST project and will be discussed below. The common characteristics of these directives include the containment of requirements for source separation, recycling and environmentally sound treatment of the remaining waste, as well as that of material restriction. They also include requirements related to information to consumers. The directives integrate a number of policy instruments discussed in Chapters 3, 4 and Packaging and packaging waste Content of the legislation Article 3.1 of the Directive 94/62/EC on packaging and packaging waste defines packaging as all products made of any materials of any nature to be used for the containment, protection, handling, delivery and presentation of goods, from raw materials to processed goods, from the producer to the user or the consumer. Non-returnable items used for the same purposes shall also be considered to constitute packaging. They are categorised as sales packaging or primary packaging, 22 grouped packaging or secondary packaging 23 and transport packaging or tertiary packaging. 24 Directive 2004/ 12/ EC 21 International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as modified by the Protocol of 1978 relating thereto (MARPOL 73/78) 22 packaging conceived so as to constitute a sales unit to the final user or consumer at the point of purchase (Article 3.1 (a). 20

35 HOLIWAST WP 1: Waste management policies and policy instruments in Europe (amending Directive 94/ 62/ EC) 25 establishes criteria for packaging and provides illustrative examples in Annex 1. Packaging waste means any packaging or packaging material, which the holder discards or intends or is required to discard. The overall aim of the Directive is to harmonise the national measures concerning the management of packaging and packaging waste in order to prevent environmental impacts relating to packaging and in order to avoid the creation of trade barriers within the internal market. The Directive is adhered to the waste hierarchy and aimed at reducing the final disposal of packaging waste (Art. 1). The Directive requires the Member States to set up appropriate collection, reuse and recycling system (Art. 7). Specific provision on the management of packaging waste should be included in the national waste management plan required by the framework directive (see Section ). The directive as amended in 2004 highlights the Member States duty to take preventative measures (Art. 4). In addition to the targets set forth in the original directive (to be achieved by 30 June 2001), the Amending Directive 2004/ 12/ EC mandates Member States to attain the targets by 31 December 2008, as shown in Table 2-2. Concerning the material restriction, the Directive sets up the maximum concentration level of lead, cadmium, mercury and hexavelent chromium in packaging, which gradually decreased (Art. 11). Furthermore, Annex II of the Directive sets up essential requirements on the composition and the reusable, recyclable and recoverable nature of packaging. Packaging put on the market must meet these requirements (Art. 9), and the details are to be defined further (Art. 10). However, defining the specific content of the essential requirements has arisen much debates, and it took more than 10 years since the introduction of the directive for the proposal made by the European Committee for Standardisation to be approved by the Commission (ENDS, 2005, February 21). 23 packaging conceived so as to constitute at the point of purchase a grouping of a certain number of sales units whether the latter is sold as such to the final user or consumer or whether it serves only as a means to replenish the shelves at the point of sale; it can be removed from the product without affecting its characteristics (Art. 3.1.(b)) 24 packaging conceived so as to facilitate handling and transport of a number of sales units or grouped packaging in order to prevent physical handling and transport damage. Transport packaging does not include road, rail, ship and air containers. (Art (c)). 25 Directive 2004/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 amending Directive 94/62/EC on packaging and packaging waste. OJ L 47, , p

36 Tojo, Neubauer and Bräuer Table 2-2: Recovery and recycling targets set forth in the amended packaging directive 94/62/EC Recovery or incineration with energy recovery (by weight) Minimum 50% Maximum 65% Recycle (by weight) Minimum 25%, Maximum 45% Each packaging material more than 15% Minimum 60% Minimum 55%, Maximum 80% glass 60% paper and board: 40% metal: 50% plastics 22.5% wood: 15% (Source: Directive 2004/12/EC, Directive 2005/20/EC) Deadline 30 June December 2008; for Greece, Ireland and Portugal, 31 December 2011; for 10 new Member States, 31 December Packaging should bear appropriate markings that facilitate source separation as well as reuse, recycling and recovery (Art. 8). Consumers must be informed of 1) the collection and recovery system, 2) their roles in contributing the reuse, recycling and recovery of packaging and packaging waste, 3) the meaning of the markings and 4) the content of the waste management plans related to packaging waste (Art. 13) Status of implementation In all EU-15 countries economic operators within the packaging chain (manufacturer, packer/ filler, distributor, importer) are responsible for all or part of waste management of packaging. In the majority of the cases, the industry has established organisations to comply with the obligations imposed by national packaging legislation on behalf of the individual businesses affected. However, industry typically has the option to fulfil their obligations by themselves. With regard to packaging waste management activities, the responsibility is shared in the majority of countries between municipalities and industry. While collection and sorting of municipal packaging waste is predominately undertaken by the public sector, the collection of industrial packaging waste and the recovery and recycling of both municipal and industrial packaging waste is typically conducted by the private sector. A study of the involvement of municipalities in Sweden reveals that even when the producers are legally responsible for collection from households, some municipalities strive to retain the collection operation under their control. The approaches taken vary between different municipalities (Tyson, 2005). The main methods of packaging recovery are material recycling and incineration with energy recovery. Overall the share of disposal in packaging waste treatment in the old 15 Member States is gradually falling, giving way to recycling (See Figure 2-4). 26 Greece, Ireland and Portugal had a delayed attainment period by 31 December The new 10 member states are granted with longer period to comply with the targets set forth in the Amending Directive 2004/12/EC. 22

37 HOLIWAST WP 1: Waste management policies and policy instruments in Europe Figure 2-4: Key treatment methods for waste packaging in the old 15EU Member States (EEA 2006). Concerning the proportion of packaging waste recycled, in 2001 all the old EU Member States including Greece, Ireland and Portugal which had extended deadline met the target of recycling at least 25% of all packaging (Table 2-3). Table 2-3. Recycling rates for packaging in selected EU Member States Austria Belgium Denmark Finland France Germany Greece Ireland Italy Luxembourg Netherlands Portugal Spain Sweden UK Total: (Source: PIRA International Ltd.,& Ecolas N.V., 2005) Waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) Content of the legislation Article 3 of the Directive 2002/96 on waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE Directive) defines electrical and electronic equipment (EEE) as equipment which is dependent on electric currents or electromagnetic fields in order to work properly and equipment for the generation, transfer and measurement of such currents and fields falling under the 23

38 Tojo, Neubauer and Bräuer categories set out in A nnex IA and designed for use with a voltage rating not exceeding 1000 V olt for alternating current and 1500 Volt for direct current. The Directive further lists categories of electrical and electronic equipment as follows: Large household appliances Small household appliances IT and telecommunications equipment Consumer equipment Lighting equipment Electrical and electronic tools (with the exception of large-scale stationary industrial tools) Toys, leisure and sports equipment Medical devices (with the exception of all implanted and infected products) Monitoring and control instruments Automatic dispensers Examples of each of the category (some of which are found in Table 2-4) are found in the Annex IB of the Directive. Waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) means waste of EEE as categorised in the Directive 75/ 442/ EEC (See Section 2.3.1), including all components, subassemblies and consumables which are part of the product at the time of discarding. The WEEE Directive is complemented by its twin Directive on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances (RoHS) in electrical and electronic equipment. 28 Both Directives were due to be transposed into national law by 13 August 2004 (Art. 17,1, WEEE Directive; Art. 9.1 RoHS Directive). The objectives of the WEEE Directive are: To prevent the generation of waste electrical and electronic equipment; To increase re-use, recycling and other forms of recovery thereby contributing to a higher level of environmental protection and encouraging resource efficiency; and To improve the environmental performance of all operators involved in the life cycle of electrical and electronic equipment, particularly those involved in the treatment of WEEE (Art. 1). Among WEEE, it makes an important distinction between 1) the historical waste (those put on the market before the directive comes into force fully: 13 August 2005) and 2) new waste (those put on the market after 13 August 2005). In terms of origin, it provides different requirements for 1) WEEE from private households and 2) WEEE from business users concerning both physical management and financial mechanism. WEEE from private households is the main concern of local governments and thus described below. 28 Directive 2002/ 95/ EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 2003 on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment. 24

39 HOLIWAST WP 1: Waste management policies and policy instruments in Europe Member States shall take necessary steps to ensure that systems are set up to enable private households to return WEEE free of charge and must endeavour to achieve, no later than 31 December 2006, a minimum rate of separate collection of WEEE from private households of 4 kg per inhabitant per year (Art. 5). The Directive does not specify which actor should be responsible for collecting WEEE from private households. The solution of Member States in this regard varies (See Section ). However, local governments in the majority of the Member States are somehow involved in collection activities. Once WEEE are collected, it is the responsibility of producers to set up systems for the recovery of separately collected WEEE. Producers of most of EEE covered by the Directive must meet specified recovery rates by 31 December 2006, (Art. 7, see Table 2-4). Within the recovery rates producers must meet specified rates for the reuse and recycling of components, materials and substances. From 13 August 2005, producers must finance, at minimum, the collection of WEEE from private households which have been deposited at collection facilities, as well as treatment, recovery and disposal of WEEE. For the historical waste, the Directive makes all the existing producers responsible for the activities above collectively. For the new waste, it is the individual brands that are responsible for their own products (Art. 8). Users in private households must be given certain information, for example on the available return and collection systems. Producers must label equipment indicating that WEEE shall not be disposed together with ordinary waste (Art. 10). Table 2-4: Material/substance reuse/recycling/recovery rate stipulated in the WEEE Directive Category of equipment Examples Recovery (%) Material and substance reuse and recycling (%) Large household Refrigerators, cookers, microwaves Small household Toasters, irons, vacuum cleaners IT & Telecommunications PCs, printers, mobile phones, copying machines Consumer TVs, video recorders, hi-fi recorders Lighting Fluorescent lamps, sodium lamps Electrical and electronic tools Drills, saws, sewing machines Toys Video games, electric trains Monitoring and control Smoke detectors, heating regulators Automatic dispensers Food and drink dispensers Medical devices Radiotherapy equipment, dialysis To be established by 31 Dec 2008 (Source: based on the Directive 2002/96) The RoHS Directive, on the other hand, prohibits the use of specific hazardous substances within EEE from 1 July. These substances are lead, mercury, cadmium, hexavalent chromium and two brominated flame retardants (polybrominated biphenyls: PBB and polybrominated diphenylethers: PBDE). However, there are exemptions, the scope of which has been expanding despite the fierce opposition of the European Parliament. 29 Concerning the product categories, RoHS Directive excludes medical devices and monitoring and control instruments from its scope. 29 See, for instance, ENDS (2005, April 12) and ENDS (2006, January 10), as well as Commission Decision 2005/747/EC and Commission Decision 2006/310/EC. 25

40 Tojo, Neubauer and Bräuer The WEEE Directive is based on Article 175(1) of the EC Treaty which seeks to achieve environmental protection. This means that it sets minimum requirements and allows Member States to set more stringent requirements. Meanwhile, the RoHS Directive is based on Article 95 of the EC Treaty that aims at harmonisation of the internal market. In this case the requirement should not vary across EU Member States following transposition Status of implementation In Europe, just as the situation with packaging waste, producers decided to establish one or more organisations that organise their obligation on their behalf. These organisations are often referred to as producer responsibility organisations (PROs). Figure 2-5 shows how producers in different EU Member States chose to organise their obligations for the take back of WEEE from private households. They are divided into either having multiple collective systems (competing collective systems) or a single collective system (Van Rossem, Tojo & Lindhqvist, 2006). Within the same countries, sometimes one PRO covers all types of WEEE from households (e.g. Sweden), 30 while in others, different PROs take care of different WEEE. For example, In the Netherlands a PRO called ICT milieu organised the system for ICT and office equipment (grey goods), while another called NVMP organised the brown and white goods. 31 Similar division is found in Switzerland. Single Collective System Competing Collective Systems Figure 2-5: WEEE systems for private households in Europe (Van Rossem, Tojo & Lindhqvist, 2006) 30 For computers mainly from businesses, an alternative system emerged from White goods are various large and small household appliances such as refrigerators and freezers, air conditioners, washing machines, dishwashers, stoves, cookers and microwaves. Brown goods, also referred to as consumer electronics or entertainment (audio/ visual) equipment, include products such as TV sets, digital cameras, video cameras, stereos, CD players, DVDs and the like. ICT and office equipment are sometimes referred to as grey goods. 26